Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel faced a day of tough questioning from lawmakers Wednesday when he went before a House committee to defend the Obama administration’s decision to approve a prisoner swap that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five Taliban detainees. Here is the recap of our live blog.

FIVE QUESTIONS: As we wait for the hearing to begin, here’s a rundown of five questions Chuck Hagel is likely to be asked today:–Do you think Sgt. Bergdahl deserted—and would it have made any difference in deciding on doing the trade if he had?–Why was this trade done now, when a similar one was turned down a couple of years ago?–Why do you trust Qatar’s promises to keep the five released Taliban leaders under control?–What happens when that agreement with Qatar expires?–Why weren’t we in Congress consulted–and did you personally want to consult us ahead of time?

SOME BACKGROUND: In the hearing today, Mr. Hagel will be asked to explain the administration’s decision to forego notifying lawmakers in advance, the assurances it accepted from Qatar concerning the future security of the former Taliban detainees, and the health assessment of Sgt. Bergdahl that officials cited as a chief reason for moving so swiftly and secretly to complete the swap.

SOME BACKGROUND II: Mr. Hagel is also likely to face questions about new revelations that the U.S. intelligence community provided an assessment predicting that two of the five detainees were likely to return to senior Taliban positions, and two others would continue to actively support the movement. Read our full story on those revelations here.

In opening statement, Mr. Hagel says Qatari negotiators warned the U.S. to move quickly to try and free Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl after officials signed an agreement on assurances the country would monitor Taliban detainees released to them.

Mr. Hagel said with the U.S. believing “the risks to Sergeant Bergdahl’s safety were growing” officials moved forward with negotiations to exchange the soldier for five Taliban detainees. The mechanics of the agreement were agreed on May 27, following three days of intensive talks, Mr. Hagel said.

GROUND RULES: At the beginning of the hearing, Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif) laid out the parameters of the hearing. He says he is not going to allow discussion of why Sgt. Bergdahl left his outpost. But he said he will explore the risks of the detainee swap to the national security of the United States. Not clear how much the members will follow those rules, and how aggressively Rep. McKeon will enforce them.

Mr. McKeon also took swings in his opening statement on the Obama administration’s decision to draw down its forces in Afghanistan as well as its attempts to close Guantanamo. “In president’s rush to close Gitmo … are other deals in the works?” Mr. McKeon asked.

No surprise that Rep Adam Smith (D., Wash.) , the ranking member of the committee, in his opening statement had a different view of the detainee exchange that freed Sgt. Bergdahl. He is supportive of efforts to shrink the population at Guantanamo. But he does ding the White House on its failure to notify the Congress. “Congress has been trusted with many other things, including the location of Osama bin Laden, and not leaked it,” Mr. Smith said.

“I’ve been offended and disappointed in how the Bergdahl family has been treated by some people. No family deserves this. I hope there will be sober reflection on people’s conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the Bergdahl family,” Mr. Hagel said.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrives on Capitol Hill June 11 to testify before the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Hagel argues that the U.S. had growing information that Sgt. Bergdahl’s health was declining. Republicans have viewed that contention skeptically. But Mr. Hagel adds to the administration’s previous arguments. In addition to the proof of life video. The U.S. had a warning from Qatar that they needed to move quickly.

This indicated that the risks to Sergeant Bergdahl’s safety were growing. We moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out the exchange of five detainees, and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of May 27th, following three days of intensive talks,” Mr. Hagel said.

HAGEL: SWAP WAS LEGAL: In his testimony, Mr. Hagel argues that the Pentagon’s decision was legal.

“The president and I would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully, in the national interest, and in the best traditions of our military,” Mr. Hagel said. “ Our operation to save Sgt. Bergdahl’s life was fully consistent with U.S. laws and our national security interests.”

A COMPLICATED DEAL: Hagel says this wasn’t simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation to safeguard Bergdahl and U.S. special operators. Here, he tries to make the legal case against the administration murkier. Legal provisions require notice for detainee transfer. He’s saying this one was something more.

In his testimony, Mr. Hagel makes a quick nod to his own wartime experience, arguing “war is a dirty business” and that unpleasant choices must be made. “Wars are messy and full of imperfect choices,” he said. “I saw this firsthand during my service in Vietnam in 1968 … when we sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead.”

TRUST BROKEN: Mr. Hagel acknowledges Pentagon-Congress trust has been “broken.” “I’ve been on your side of this equation. I understand it.” Nonetheless, he argues the administration did the right thing. His point here: There was no easy way out on this decision.

STRONG CASE: Chairman McKeon says Mr. Hagel made a “strong case.” And, Rep. McKeon says, if he had made that case in January, when the latest phase of the Taliban talks were under way, there would have been no “pushback.”

A key question the committee is trying to resolve is, would the five detainees have to be released when the conflict with the Taliban ends. Some members have suggested that the detainees wouldn’t be automatically released by the courts because the fight with al Qaeda will go on.

Mr. Preston said the international law basis of holding the Taliban could end, with the end of combat in Afghanistan. But he also suggests they could be held as an associated force of al Qaeda.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), the heir apparent to take over the committee when Rep. McKeon retires at the end of the year, argues that the decision not to notify Congress has undermined trust between lawmakers and the Pentagon, saying their work depends on getting accurate information.

Mr. Hagel is emphasizing the U.S. was negotiating with the Qatar government, not the Taliban or the Haqqani network. The Haqqanis, which were holding Sgt. Bergdahl, have been classified as a terrorist organization. So it is key for the administration to note that they never negotiated directly with Haqqanis to rebuff Republican charges that they negotiated with terrorists.

As questioning continues, Mr. Hagel presses the case that the U.S. needed to move urgently to get Sgt. Bergdahl out. “In our intelligence communities’ opinion, this was our best opportunity to get him out,” Mr. Hagel said.

Republicans have criticized the deal that freed Sgt. Bergdahl, saying too many Taliban detainees were released for the solider. But Mr. Hagel notes even more could have been released. The original deal would have released six detainees. But one of the prisoners died at Guantanamo and was dropped from the deal.

Rep. Jim Langevin (D., R.I.) asks if the transfer will increase the risk to U.S. service members (that militant groups will try, and be incentivized to try, to capture American personnel. But Mr. Hagel responds that the Taliban has had standing orders for 12 years to try and capture U.S. military personnel.

“War is a dangerous business, a soldier is always at risk,” Mr. Hagel said.

Rep. McKeon responds to Mr. Hagel’s contention that there is nothing new in the exchange that would create additional incentives to capture American soldiers by answering that the U.S. has traded for a hostage, something it never does. Mr. Hagel answers that the deal was a prisoner exchange, not a hostage ransom.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), also a candidate to lead the committee next year, presses Mr. Hagel on whether American lives would be put at risk to go after the Taliban detainees should they return to the battlefield.

Mr. Hagel is getting a little feistier, dropping his usual deference to lawmakers and pushing back against Mr. Forbes’ contention that the deal will put the U.S. at risk.

Mr. Preston argues that the military’s statements on Sgt. Bergdahl have been “entirely neutral” to preserve the soldier’s rights and insure there is no unlawful command influence that would put pressure on the Army to pursue or drop charges against him. Under military law, if a commander puts pressure on subordinate leaders to investigate or prosecute a crime, military judges must throw the charges out.

In the most tense exchange of the hearing, Rep. Jeff Miller (R., Fla.) asks why the military hasn’t asked Sgt. Bergdahl about his capture by the Taliban and why he hasn’t been brought to a military hospital in the U.S.

Mr. Hagel clearly took umbrage at Rep. Miller and said he doesn’t like “the implications” of the question.

“This guy was held for five years in God knows what conditions,” Mr. Hagel said.

Angrily, Mr. Hagel suggests the U.S. isn’t going to interfere with Sgt. Hagel’s medical care to begin an interrogation of him, and says members of Congress shouldn’t second guess the medical decisions.

Mr. Preston is noncommittal on Rep. Joe Courtney‘s (D., Conn.) request for the administration to provide email exchanges between the Pentagon and the Department of Justice over the necessity to comply with the notification requirement before transferring detainees from Guantanamo.

GOP electoral woes seep into the Bergdahl hearing. Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio) tries going after Mr. Hagel on the grounds that the U.S. negotiated with designated terror group the Haqqani network. Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.) says Mr. Turner may be running for majority leader, the post held by Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), who lost his primary race Tuesday.

Stephen Preston, general counsel with the Department of Defense, right

Mr. McKeon pressed Mr. Preston on why the administration didn’t brief Congress on May 21, after the agreement with Qatar was struck but before the deal to exchange the Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bergdahl was finalized.

The two go around and around as Mr. Preston argues there was no statutory trigger to notify Congress until an agreement to transfer the detainees was struck. Mr. McKeon asks why the administration didn’t move earlier since that requirement was going to be ignored.

NOTIFICATION: The notification issue continues to dominate the hearing. Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) calls the department’s rationale for not telling Congress of the deal “torturous,” and presses for more details on who made the decision not to notify lawmakers.

Mr. Hagel responds, “This was imperfect, this was imprecise.”

“Sure there was confusion,” Mr. Hagel said. “Through that we had to stay focused on what the objective was, and that was getting an American POW back.”

Mr. McKeon is taking a much more active role in the hearing than he normally does, jumping in with short questions in between members’ questions. His most recent: “Is the Haqqani network part of the Taliban?” There is no concrete answer from Mr. Preston.

Question of the moment: How many terrorists are watching the hearing? Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) predicts there are terrorist groups which will redouble and intensify their efforts to capture American troops because of the deal for Sgt. Bergdahl. “There are terrorists watching this hearing in complete jubilation,” he argues.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Calif.), called on colleagues to watch how they talk about Sgt. Bergdahl: “I really fear for his return to this country with the kind of rhetoric being spewed in this very room,” she said.

HAGEL’S DECISION: Mr. Hagel is moving to own the decision not to notify Congress, saying it was his decision that he made with the support of President Barack Obama and the administration.

In previous Congressional testimony, Mr. Hagel has always stopped talking when members of Congress made speeches or took him to task. Not today. He is plowing forward, talking over members, pushing back and accusing lawmakers of not actually asking questions.

Mr. Hagel and Rep. Conaway go head to head in one of the more heated discussions yet. Mr. Conaway calls the administration’s lack of trust in Congress “insulting, disrespectful.” After an extended back-and-forth in which both Mr. Hagel and Mr. Conaway, talking over one another, say the other should read the transcript, Mr. Conaway eventually gives up in frustration.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.,Calif.) asks if the Department of Defense had other options to release Sgt. Bergdahl, other deals it was working on . Mr. Hagel says the Taliban swap was the only “serious” option that was looked at.

“This was the one on the table, the most realistic, most valuable,” Mr. Hagel responds.

Rep. Hunter ends his questioning of Mr. Hagel by saying he hopes the Defense Department will turn its focus to trying to release the American civilians still being held by militants in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Rep. Hunter has argued that securing the release of those people should have been part of any deal to release the Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo.

So far, Republicans have focused mostly on the issue of notification, with a few questions about the basic parameters of the deal (exchanging Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bergdahl) and hammering away at the idea that the administration negotiated with terrorists. But the members mostly followed Mr. McKeon’s admonition not to attack Sgt. Bergdahl.

For his part, Mr. Hagel delivered a forceful performance, far more aggressive than his previous appearances before Congress. The White House will likely be pleased about the performance as well, as Mr. Hagel took responsibility for the decision not to notify Congress but also forcefully defended Mr. Obama’s decision-making.

Comments (5 of 28)

Why did not anyone from Congress questing Hagel clearly state the law(s) that he and Obama broke.

They could have pinned this guy in seconds and ended the discussion.

4:24 pm June 11, 2014

joeshuren wrote:

I see that Mr Preston corrected Mr Hagel and explained that the US does not consider the detainees to be prisoners of war ("prisoners") under the Geneva Convention. He used the term "belligerents" instead of unlawful enemy combatants. This avoids the real issue. Prisoners of war cannot be tried for crimes such as murder, they are "privileged", while unlawful combatants can be. If these men could not be tried then the same applies to KSM. The US should have insisted Sgt. Bergdahl be treated as a POW under Geneva. Mr Obama wishes to close Guantanamo and try remaining detainees in civil court. But under current law they must be tried as war criminals or for crimes such as murder by US military commissions. POWs cannot be tried, but unlawful combatants violate not only laws such as murder but are war criminals and so remain under military law. The DOJ could take this to the Supreme Court, but the House could better impeach, as then documents would be discovered.

2:01 pm June 11, 2014

joeshuren wrote:

Hagel and Preston need to explain fully and carefully the legal status of the detainees, both released and held. He avoided using the proper term, unlawful enemy combatants, preferring "belligerents" in a war and "prisoners." He said they could not be held for trial by military commissions since they were not in violation of US law. But they have already been determined by military tribunals to be unlawful combatants, not worthy of POW status, and faced military commission trials for violating the laws of war as well as murder. What does all this mean about President Obama's goal in closing Guantanamo? Will he have to release or trade KSM, who admitted beheading a Wall Street Journal reporter?

1:47 pm June 11, 2014

joeshuren wrote:

Mr Hagel testified that the President has a legal obligation to defend the nation. But both swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not override the Constitution while saying that the President can violate it for national security reasons.

Secretary Hagel pointed out that under military code of justice the commander cannot legally intervene in any case against Sgt. Bergdahl. But the Secretary also stated he unilaterally signed a declaration that the detainees were not too dangerous to release, and so overrode the same code and its administrative review boards at Guantanamo as well as the laws Congress wrote, the Supreme Court upheld, and the President signed, the lawful US system of military justice for unlawful enemy combatants. Some German generals were shot for similarly overriding or ignoring independent justice for partisan hostages in WWII.

1:40 pm June 11, 2014

Really? wrote:

Hagel made a forceful argument...Most liars are forceful as much as they are deceitful.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.